Being a constitutional right, it was not within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that leave should be used as a form of punishment to get rid of unwanted workers and public service officials from their positions. We direct that the mantra ‘proceed on leave’ should, from today, be a thing of the past in this jurisdiction. Appointment letters, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Conditions of service, Regulations and Human Resource Policy Framework Manuals which provide for severance in relationships between employers and employees or mode for disciplinary action against employees should be the preferred reference document and resorted to in all cases of such severance and whenever the conduct of a worker warrants his interdiction, termination or summary dismissal.
But rest, leisure and holidays are rights which do not carry any obligation on the person entitled to be compelled to proceed on the rest. Any person with that kind of right could compromise it and lose the right to embark on the rest at the end of the leave year unless deferred by an agreement with the management of his establishment.
In the same way, the provision made in section 31 of the Labour Act was designed to cure mischief in the past, which entitled workers to sell their annual leave for cash payable by their employers. After the passage of Act 651, any such agreement would be void, and no benefits would accrue to the advantage of the employer or worker. Section 31, therefore, could not be interpreted in any other way to compel a worker to take his earned Leave. In our opinion, no one can be compelled to enjoy a right or benefit unless it forms an obligation, the non-performance of which fundamentally affects another.
